Money Matters

[ladysprite]

Apologies for the rant that's about to follow, but....

So I've been thinking a lot recently about social classes, and financial privilege. And I have to wonder - at what point of material well-being does one become incapable of comprehending that there are people whose upbringing did not match theirs?

Because I have a significant handful of friends - good friends, good people - who grew up fairly well-off, who are just incapable of comprehending this. They weren't wealthy, and that's all that they see, and so they feel that they grew up underprivileged. And, by extrapolation, that anyone else who claims the label 'underprivileged' grew up in a situation like theirs.

And to be honest, it frustrates me, because... well, there was a bit more challenge to growing up on food stamps, or with sometimes not enough money for both heat and food, than to growing up with only one summer home and no in-ground pool.

I grew up lower-middle class. Food stamps, reduced-price school lunches, hand-me-down clothes from my cousin who was sixteen years older than me. And yet I understand that it could have been a hell of a lot worse, and that there were people out there who DID have it a lot worse - we had enough food (mostly cheap stuff like Hamburger Helper, but it was food), we had a phone and tv.

And I think that's what confuses me the most. It seems like, at some level of privilege, people become incapable of recognizing that some people have it worse. And I don't understand how this happens, or at what point - or when the assumption becomes that everyone starts life off with more or less the same resources as you.

(And on that note, don't get me started on 'We're not rich, we WORKED for our money!' So did my family. The only difference is we started out with a lot more debt and a lot fewer resources, and earned a lot less. We weren't poor because we were lazy; we were poor because no one paid for our education or sent us out into the world with a stock portfolio and a trust fund.)

That said... ultimately what I want is to understand, and figure out how to explain. Because it's no one's fault that they grew up in different circumstances, and ultimately, as I said, they're good people. But I think that finding a way to communicate clearly this difference in experiences and circumstances would go a long way to improving the situation in this country.....

Comments

[umbran.livejournal.com]

They weren't wealthy, and that's all that they see, and so they feel that they grew up underprivileged.

Given what follows, here's their first problem.

well, there was a bit more challenge to growing up on food stamps, or with sometimes not enough money for both heat and food, than to growing up with only one summer home and no in-ground pool.

If they had a "summer home", they were wealthy. So, yes, they have a fundamental lack of understanding of common wealth levels in the USA, much less the rest of the world.

If this misunderstanding is based merely in ignorance, it isn't a sin. But it will be persistent. If they were raised such that they never saw how many difficulties others had, then we are talking about challenging fundamental worldview, which is never easy.

But, honestly, I don't think that many folks are really that clueless. Most of the time, you're facing a different challenge. Getting someone to admit that they came from an easier starting point entails getting them to admit two things:

1) Their achievements are less impressive than they think.

2) They, personally, are an example of injustice in the world, and their entire life is based on that injustice.

The former is butting heads with their ego, which is hard. But the latter is worse, as it carries moral implications few have the fortitude to address.

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

This is just to play devil's advocate, but in some countries a summer home is a farming cabin used so urban families can bring in food.

I had two college friends who had beach houses. One family rented theirs out and it was actually a source of income. The other had been in their large family for years. Yes, both families were well-off, but having seen wealthy, I would not say wealthy. Mileage may vary, of course.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Good points - I was thinking specifically of the typical American meaning of the phrase, "summer home", which doesn't refer to real estate owned to produce income.

As to the family that has had a property for years - well it doesn't matter if the holding is in a bank account, stocks, or real estate, it is still wealth, is it not?

Mileage will certainly vary on terms. No need to quibble over the differences between "well-off" and "wealthy". Both of those have advantage over those who have issues keeping up with the utility payments, and I think that's the basic dividing line here.

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

True enough. Although I was raised solidly in the middle class, my extended family wasn't. I had cousins living hand to mouth, and an aunt who had to sell the farm. Bankruptcy. Foreclosure. It hit the family.

But I never grokked wealth. Not as a kid, at least. In some ways, I still don't. I mean, I saw the beach houses and I thought "That is being rich." But I have seen other examples that disprove this.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

As mindways points out - you didn't disprove that your friends were wealthy. You merely proved that it is possible to be wealthier than your friends.

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

Lots of people have difficulty thinking about what being wealthy means. Let me get anecdotal, because I prefer stories anyway.

When I was in elementary school, my bus route typically went in one direction, but sometimes the driver would run his circular route in reverse and this meant we'd drive by the local amusement park. As a kid, we all thought this was the best place ever. Amusement rides, Roller rink. A ballroom. Just awesome.

Anyway, it became our standard of wealth. The kids all bragged that when they grew up, they would own Lincoln Park. It was the richest, best thing we could imagine.

Of course, the park leaked money like mad and was constantly operated at a loss and was in fact, not worth nearly as much as we thought it would be. Look at the article. It is like a graveyard, now.

This is what wealth looks like when you are poor. It is flashy and huge and full of lights and fun - lollipops and rainbows and rides. This isn't what wealth actually is. Flash is flash. Wealth is often invisible.

Summer houses. Second or third cars. Big houses. Vacations. Expensive neighborhoods. High ticket hobbies. Yachts. These things can be on loans, or worked for, and often come in at a balance of under a million. Someone has spent money to get them. They are not the measure of having money.

The person with the flash is like the owner of the Amusement park. Maybe they are rich, and maybe they are struggling with debt. It is often impossible to tell before everything falls apart.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Summer houses. Second or third cars. Big houses. Vacations. Expensive neighborhoods. High ticket hobbies. Yachts. These things can be on loans, or worked for, and often come in at a balance of under a million. Someone has spent money to get them. They are not the measure of having money.

There are at least four factors I can think of that have tremendous sway over how we perceive socioeconomic status: income, debt, wealth, and liquidity.

No one of these is enough to change someone from rich to poor or vice versa, but some are a lot easier to perceive than others.

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

I guess my point is that the perception of status is not actual status. Many of the factors you discuss are invisible from the outside.

I have been trying to imagine the wealthy reaction to ownership of a luxury like a beach house, and it is this: these things aren't always a good investment - is it worth it?

Another anecdote:

When my wife and I bought a snow blower ages ago, we ran into class differences in our money talk. I asked if we (she, really) could afford a more expensive model. She answered that she didn't know. I did not understand this. In my experience, you had the funding or you didn't. How do you not know? I kept asking "CAN we do this or CAN'T we?" It seemed like basic math to me.

For her the question read "should" we afford to buy the more expensive model. If push came to shove, she could move money out of investments and balance our budget. What "can" she afford? Heck, if she liquefied certain accounts, we "CAN" afford a huge damn pickup with a snowplow. CAN was never the question. I didn't get that. I never lived with the sort of cushion. We approached this simple question from a different mindset. She was thinking long-term in a way I would need to learn to consider.

Mind you, the question was still valid and worth considering. Was the higher ticket item worth pulling money out of investments. The answer was probably, but I didn't even have the language to discuss this.

We have cleared this separation of assumptions, now, and I can discuss matters on her level, but my shift in attitude/thinking marks a distinct change in my social class.

It is a difference that is hard to perceive, but more real than ownership of X, Y or Z which is much easier to perceive.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

I guess my point is that the perception of status is not actual status. Many of the factors you discuss are invisible from the outside.

That is true. But that's part and parcel with being careful using stereotypes. The general classification is useful, but you have to take care that an individual you're talking to actually fits the classification. We're talking in sorthand for purposes of illustrating points, not threatening to apply those shorthands to living individuals without further qualifying.

However, here's a note - say someone's got a second home, and now, they're in debt. Setting aside recent predatory mortgages for a moment, that second home is still an indication of wealth - this person has resources enough to get a second home, which is more than someone who cannot afford a *single* home has. As the old adage goes - the way to get a bank to loan you money is to prove you already have money.

And, while the edge cases are still notable, it is important to realize that there are some break-points in the nation's wealth distribution. It isn't a nice smooth curve from low to high. I will have to see if I can find a reference...

[citabria]

Actually, I think one of your presumptions should be modified:

Setting aside recent predatory mortgages for a moment, that second home is still an indication of wealth - this person has resources enough to get a second home, which is more than someone who cannot afford a *single* home has. As the old adage goes - the way to get a bank to loan you money is to prove you already have money.

I would say that this person had, at one time, resources enough to get a second home.

While one might think that if someone's income/resources changed substantially they would sell the second home that they could no longer afford, I think that might depend on the person's job and what they were expected to be able to do/show as a {insert job here}. While that may sound crazy, I can think of people in various positions who are, even today, expected to entertain colleagues -- in their home. Or, over the summer, in their summer home at the beach/in the mountains/at the lake. They would perceive not being able to do this as detrimental to their career and, as a result, even more detrimental to their income -- even though they're living on Ramen while trying to keep both homes.

[mindways]

but having seen wealthy, I would not say wealthy

This is something of a trap - not that you specifically are falling into it, but many people do: "I've seen rich, and I'm not that, so I'm not rich".

The problem being that there are levels upon levels of rich, and nearly everyone on the planet can think of people who are orders of magnitude more wealthy than they are - the gap between the 99th income percentile and the 99.9th is huge, and between the 99.9th and 99.99th is even larger.

(This may be exacerbated by the fact that the human brain uses "things I've seen / heard about" as a heuristic for frequency, and many super-rich celebrities are seen in the media? Not sure.)

[quietann.livejournal.com]

That's a very good point.

My husband and I are what many of our friends would consider "rich." And compared to most people, even most Americans, we are (though not in "the 1%"). Money is such a tricky subject, though.

The one way in which I absolutely do consider us to be rich is that our house is paid for. No mortgage or rent makes a huge difference in the MA economy. (When the wealth happened at that company, almost everyone who got it went out and bought a house. Practical people: "At least no matter what happens, I'll have a place to live." Few looked at it as an investment.")

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

It is a trap, to be sure, and it is the same sort of thing that ladysprite originally discussed, but on the other end of the ruler.

My friends with summer homes were privileged, and in some definitions of wealth, they were rich. For a variety of reasons, I'd put them within the middle class. But that is like a line in the sand. For people struggling in poverty, middle class is rich.

I have "married well." My wife's family is wealthy. It isn't something that you'd guess if you knew her. The family is sensible about money, but they have a lot of it, and sometimes commit acts of extravagance without a second thought.

So just to be clear, I may be falling into a trap, but it is not self-denial.

[mindways]

Clarification: I didn't mean to imply that you yourself were falling into a trap - just that your wording illustrated a particular trap perfectly. :)

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

No problem. To a degree I am falling into the trap. While poverty is killing people, talking about the line in the sand of privilege is sort of ridiculous.

However, how people self-perceive does effect how they approach money, and how they treat others. Yeah, my wording is betrays my middle class upbringing big time.